The Las Palmas Court orders the vaccination of an elderly man admitted to a residence against the will of his son

The affected party, 79 years old, is incapacitated to make decisions, and the Court believes that the protection of health should prevail over the opinion of the family member

October 8 2021 (15:50 WEST)
Updated in October 10 2021 (09:11 WEST)
Courthouse Facade

The Provincial Court of Las Palmas has confirmed the decision of a court in Fuerteventura to authorize the supply of the vaccine against Covid-19 to a 79-year-old man incapacitated to decide for himself and resident in a senior center, against the criteria of his son, who opposes the prescription being made effective. 

The Court confirms the judicial permission to the health authorities to immunize the incapacitated elderly man, considering that the criterion that should prevail is "the greatest protection and the best benefit of the resident's health", "any other consideration should be left aside".

The Third Section of the Provincial Court of Las Palmas has today issued the order dismissing the appeal filed by the son of the affected party against the resolution of the Court of First Instance and Instruction number 3 of Puerto del Rosario, which last May 26 authorized the health service of a residence for the elderly in Fuerteventura to supply the vaccine to a 79-year-old inmate "not capable of adopting in a valid and conscious way any type of decision that affects his health".

The decision of the civil court was appealed by the son of the affected party, opposed to his parent receiving the vaccine. The Public Prosecutor's Office opposed the estimation of the appeal, requesting the confirmation of the resolution

The Court communicates that it has made its decision under article 9.6 of Law 41/2002 of November 14 on the autonomy of the patient, which establishes that in cases in which consent must be granted by the legal representative [of the affected party] or persons linked by family or de facto reasons, "the decision must always be adopted taking into account the greatest benefit for the life or health of the patient".

The resolution recalls that, in addition, the rule establishes that those decisions that are contrary to these interests "must be brought to the attention of the judicial authority, directly or through the Public Prosecutor's Office, so that it adopts the corresponding judicial resolution".

The presiding magistrate, José Antonio Morales Mateo, understands that, in light of this postulate, the only perspective to be weighed in the case "is the individual one of the patient, that is, the identification of the greatest protection or the greatest benefit of the resident's health, any other consideration should be left aside".

"The administration of the vaccine", he reasons, "supposes, from the perspective of the individual interest and protection for the life and health of the same, an incontestable benefit, much greater than the risks that would entail the non-administration of the same, taking into account that, although it is not a person who due to his pathologies is in a risk group, he is at risk because he is in a closed regime in a residence, surrounded by dozens of inmates, and with the traffic of diverse people, personnel, doctors, relatives... logical in a residence".

He emphasizes that it must be taken into account that the vaccines that are administered in Spain are authorized by the European Medicines Agency and the Spanish Agency for Medicines and Health Products, "in addition to being subject to continuous monitoring, which allows us to assume that they have been elaborated, despite the speed of the process, with the maximum guarantees of quality, safety and efficacy, and that for that same reason the benefits of their administration notoriously outweigh the derived risks verified up to the moment".

The decision of the Court is not susceptible to any appeal.

Most read